Complex systems such as aircraft and aircraft engines typically have distributed control system architecture. Such control systems include sensors and actuators that communicate with a master controller (such as an Engine Control Module (ECM), or a full authority digital engine controller (FADEC)) to provide computing parameters or table lookups, etc.
Some distributed control systems include sensor nodes and actuator nodes. Sensor nodes provide information about the physical state of the engine, and actuator nodes received commands or data from various sources to operate an engine actuator. Typically, the sensor nodes and actuator nodes are coupled to the master controller, which allows the distributed architecture, and thereby enables the master controller to be reduced in size. That is, typically the sensor nodes and actuator nodes move functionality from the master controller. The nodes are therefore deemed to be “smart”, in that data from the nodes is fed back to the master controller to improve operation of the aircraft, providing adaptive control to improve stall avoidance, improve bandwidth, and system control.
Components (i.e., sensors and actuators) may be calibrated upon power-up or may be checked for performance during periodic maintenance. However, during aircraft operation component wear may occur, which can go unnoticed by the operator because the component may continue to operate beyond its limits or outside of its specification after its performance has degraded. If performance demands are not dialed back, component failure may be accelerated and precipitated by continued use. Also, if component life is estimated based on general population trends of the components or based on standard life models that are generally applied, a component failure may occur unexpectedly even though the component is still within its theoretical life.
Accordingly, there is a need to improve component life assessment in aircraft components.